Cyril Hovorun shows some good evidence for seeing that St. Severus does acknowledge human will, energy, operation, and properties. However, he does provide quotes for those who say they follow St. Severus that might have seen nothing in Christ but a divine will. Themistius for instance, an "Agnoetes" who believed that Christ's human ignorance was a real ignorance, i.e. that His human nature did not know all things. He follows St. Severus very close in everything else though. But because some people didn't like his ignorance doctrine, Cyril Hovorun argues that people like Pope Theodosius of Alexandria affirmed only a divine will, despite being according to Cyril Hovorun, "above all Severan," and quoting Grillmeier, "what Cyril was to Severus, the latter was to Theodosius." Nevertheless, he says about St. Theodosius that even the blameless passions of Christ he called "divine energia," and that the human passions were very passive. Then about a century later, Pope St. Benjamin of Alexandria affirmed again human component of energia, and he seemed to preach about it as active.

I guess two questions come out of this. What was the difference between the Agnoetes and St. Theodosius? One said the ignorance was real human ignorance, but the other said it was part of the economy to show that His humanity is real???

The other question is what did Pope St. Theodosius teach? Do we have any translated works of his? Do we know anyone who wrote his works? And Pope St. Benjamin as well?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Themistius was a follower of St Severus who accepted that the humanity of Christ was complete and consubstantial with us, and took this to the extent that he taught that Christ must also be ignorant in his humanity.

There is an excellent volume, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, by Van Roey and Allen, which contains a selection of texts and useful commentary dealing with this issue.

In brief. St Theodosius would allow that it was Orthodox to say that the humanity of Christ was naturally ignorant en theoria, but that as the humanity of the Word of God the divine knowledge was always present to the humanity in the natural and hypostatic union. Themistius seems to want to say that the humanity is ignorant even in the union, and therefore was accused of establishing two subjects, one who was ignorant and one who was divinely knowledgeable.

The same volume contains many documents from St Theodosius.

The commentary is in English, the text in Syriac, unfortunately the translation is into Latin. I will ask Allen if the material was translated into English as part of the translation effort.

I remember reading somewhere that St. Severus argued that Christ's human mind was omniscient, not ignorant, by virtue of the mind's hypostatic union with the Divine hypostasis. Is this true? And, if so, where can I read what St. Severus has to say on this matter?

Also where can I read St. Theodosius' and Benjamin's works? Were they in the volume Fr. Peter mentioned in message #3?

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 03:07:14 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

This doesn't have anything to do with the questions I posted, but I found this that is attributed to Pope St. Theodosius concerning the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. According to the site, it was a homily told towards the end of his life, and the way it is written is as if it is written from the Apostles' perspectives. But I don't know how authentic this is, but it was an interesting read:

It has some Christology in it, but mainly what sparked my interest is the poetic dialogues and the beliefs that the Coptic Church in the sixth century might have had at the time, i.e. that the Assumption was an actual Resurrection of the Theotokos.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 03:28:40 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Themistius seems to want to say that the humanity is ignorant even in the union

Huzzah for Themistius!

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Themistius seems to want to say that the humanity is ignorant even in the union

Huzzah for Themistius!

Even Saint Athanasius argues that Christ is ignorant in His humanity after the union, IIRC.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

"Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even He Himself - that is, when viewed according to the flesh, because He too, as human, lives within the limits of the human condition. He said this to show that, viewed as an ordinary man, He does not know the future, for this is a human characteristic. Insofar as He is viewed according to His divinity as the Logos Who is to come, to judge, to be Bridegroom, however, He knows when and in what hour He will come....Viewed according to His divinity, He knows, and there is nothing which He does not know." [ Discourses Against the Arians, Third Discourse]

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 05:15:35 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Well this is what I said St Theodosius said. En theoria we can say that the humanity is ignorant as taken on its own. But it is not on its own and the divinity, as St Athanasius says, knows all things.

In that in the Kenosis the Logos chose to be truly ignorant in the flesh?

Yep.

If one of the Trinity can be crucified in the flesh, though divinity has no body, then one of the Trinity can be ignorant in the flesh, though divinity has no ignorance.

If one says "The Logos was ignorant in theory because he was really human, but could not have been truly ignorant because his humanity was divinized from the union" then one must say "The Logos could die in theory because he was really human, but could not have truly died because his humanity was divinized from the union".

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 05:32:21 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Well this is what I said St Theodosius said. En theoria we can say that the humanity is ignorant as taken on its own. But it is not on its own and the divinity, as St Athanasius says, knows all things.

Nicholas, does your Huzzah mean that you agree with Themistius?

Silly me then!

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I take the view that we always need to begin with our Fathers and understand their position thoroughly before we allow ourselves to move beyond it.

It was my impression that I shared the patristic view on this issue.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

This doesn't have anything to do with the questions I posted, but I found this that is attributed to Pope St. Theodosius concerning the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. According to the site, it was a homily told towards the end of his life, and the way it is written is as if it is written from the Apostles' perspectives. But I don't know how authentic this is, but it was an interesting read:

It has some Christology in it, but mainly what sparked my interest is the poetic dialogues and the beliefs that the Coptic Church in the sixth century might have had at the time, i.e. that the Assumption was an actual Resurrection of the Theotokos.

Isn't it?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation." -6th Ecumenical Council

It seems they are condemning Themistius for perceived monophyistism, not for saying that Christ was ignorant in his humanity.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Well you'll have to believe what you will then. You seem to have mafe up your mind already. What of the other EO and OO witnesses? And why on earth would he be mentioned if he was just another Severan.

What of the other EO and OO witnesses? And why on earth would he be mentioned if he was just another Severan.

Byzantines tend to do that in councils.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

This doesn't have anything to do with the questions I posted, but I found this that is attributed to Pope St. Theodosius concerning the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. According to the site, it was a homily told towards the end of his life, and the way it is written is as if it is written from the Apostles' perspectives. But I don't know how authentic this is, but it was an interesting read:

It has some Christology in it, but mainly what sparked my interest is the poetic dialogues and the beliefs that the Coptic Church in the sixth century might have had at the time, i.e. that the Assumption was an actual Resurrection of the Theotokos.

Isn't it?

There are some in the Coptic Church today who are arguing that the Assumption was just an Assumption of her body, but was and will not be reunited with her soul until the second coming.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Did Themistius probably missed saying that the Logos, who knows all things, voluntarily allowed to be ignorant of certain things in His human nature? Did he preach more of an involuntary ignorant human nature of Christ, that might set apart from the Divine Person of Christ?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

This doesn't have anything to do with the questions I posted, but I found this that is attributed to Pope St. Theodosius concerning the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. According to the site, it was a homily told towards the end of his life, and the way it is written is as if it is written from the Apostles' perspectives. But I don't know how authentic this is, but it was an interesting read:

It has some Christology in it, but mainly what sparked my interest is the poetic dialogues and the beliefs that the Coptic Church in the sixth century might have had at the time, i.e. that the Assumption was an actual Resurrection of the Theotokos.

Isn't it?

There are some in the Coptic Church today who are arguing that the Assumption was just an Assumption of her body, but was and will not be reunited with her soul until the second coming.

So she is a zombie in heaven?

Is there many Copts who deny her resurrection? I never met one.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This doesn't have anything to do with the questions I posted, but I found this that is attributed to Pope St. Theodosius concerning the Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos. According to the site, it was a homily told towards the end of his life, and the way it is written is as if it is written from the Apostles' perspectives. But I don't know how authentic this is, but it was an interesting read:

It has some Christology in it, but mainly what sparked my interest is the poetic dialogues and the beliefs that the Coptic Church in the sixth century might have had at the time, i.e. that the Assumption was an actual Resurrection of the Theotokos.

Isn't it?

There are some in the Coptic Church today who are arguing that the Assumption was just an Assumption of her body, but was and will not be reunited with her soul until the second coming.

So she is a zombie in heaven?

Is there many Copts who deny her resurrection? I never met one.

At the risk of defending something I personally don't believe in, it's in a way a preservation and veneration of her body. We can't really call that as "zombie in heaven." Do we have relics in Church and call them zombies?

At the same time, those who do believe this believe that no one can rise from the dead until the second coming of Christ. So, for consistency's sake, they believe that the reunion between soul and flesh can never happen until the second coming.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

John 11:34 And [Jesus] said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

This was taken by the Agnoetae as showing that our Lord was ignorant of some things, at least in his humanity. But St Cyril comments on this passage and very clearly illustrates that he would have had no sympathy with Themistius. His commentary is also a useful reminder of his view that the humanity was always the tool of the Word, as we discussed in relation to the Word so acting in his humanity that he felt no hunger for the forty days in the desert until the end.

St Cyril says..

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, and said, Where have ye laid him?

Now since Christ was not only God by Nature, but; also Man, He suffers in common with the rest that which is human; and when grief begins somehow to be stirred within Him, and His Holy Flesh now inclines to tears, He does not allow It to indulge in them without restraint, as is the custom with us. But He groans in the spirit, that is, in the power of the Holy Spirit He reproves in some way His Own Flesh: and That, not being able to endure the action of the Godhead united with It, trembles and presents the appearance of trouble. For this I think to be the signification of "He was troubled;" for how otherwise could He endure trouble? Shall that Nature which is ever undisturbed and calm be troubled in any way? The flesh therefore is reproved by the Spirit, being taught to feel things beyond its own nature. For indeed on this account the Almighty Word of God was made in Flesh, or rather was made Flesh, that He might strengthen the weaknesses of the flesh by the energies of His own Spirit, and withdraw our nature from too earthly feelings, and transform it as it were to such feelings only as are pleasing to God. Surely it is an infirmity of human nature to be abjectly overcome by griefs, but this as well as the rest is brought into subjection, in Christ first, that it may be also in us.

Or thus we must understand the words: He groaned in the spirit and was troubled, viz:----as equivalent to: "Being moved to compassion by reason of many weeping, He in a manner gave commandment to His own Spirit to overthrow death before the time, and to raise up Lazarus." And it is not as being ignorant that He asks: Where have ye laid him? For He Who had known of Lazarus' death when He was in another part of the country, how could He be ignorant about the tomb? But He speaks thus as being averse to arrogance: therefore He did not say: "Let us go to the tomb, for I will awaken him," although asking the question particularly in the way He did has this significance. Moreover also by saying this, He prepared many to go before Him that they might shew Him that which He sought. With a set purpose therefore He said this also, drawing by His words many to the place, and appears not to know, not at all shrinking from the poverty of man's condition, although in His Nature God and knowing all things, not only those which have been, but also those which shall be, before their existence.

And the asking a question therefore does not imply any ignorance in Him Who for our sakes was made like unto us, but rather He is shown from this to be equal to the Father; for He too asks a question: Adam, where art thou? Christ also feigns ignorance and inquires: Where have ye laid him? so that through the inquiry a multitude might be gathered together to the manifestation, and that by His enemies, rather than by others, testimony should be given to the miracle of restoring to life one who was already corrupt.

St. John Chrysostom says He asks "where" in order to free the miracle of any suspicion (I guess that means to show it wasn't a pre-planned set-up). He doesn't comment on ignorance vs. omniscience. He does say about the weeping and groaning:

Quote

2. He comes then to the tomb; and again rebukes His feelings. Why does the Evangelist carefully in several places mention that He wept, and that, He groaned? That you may learn that He had of a truth put on our nature. For when this Evangelist is remarkable for uttering great things concerning Christ more than the others, in matters relating to the body, here he also speaks much more humbly than they. For instance, concerning His death he has said nothing of the kind; the other Evangelists declare that He was exceedingly sorrowful, that He was in an agony; but John, on the contrary, says, that He even cast the officers backwards. So that he has made up here what is omitted there, by mentioning His grief. When speaking of His death, Christ says, I have power to lay down My life John 10:18, and then He utters no lowly word; therefore at the Passion they attribute to Him much that is human, to show the reality of the Dispensation. And Matthew proves this by the Agony, the trouble, the trembling, and the sweat; but John by His sorrow. For had He not been of our nature, He would not once and again have been mastered by grief. What did Jesus? He made no defense with regard to their charges; for why should He silence by words those who were soon to be silenced by deeds? A means less annoying, and more adapted to shame them.

I think Nicholas has a good point that if Christ could die, why couldn't He be ignorant?

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 04:54:23 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

In his commentary on Matthew 24:36, however, he does allude to John 11:34 and says that Christ was not ignorant.

Quote

But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. By saying, not the angels, He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, neither the Son, forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire. For in proof that therefore He said this, see after His resurrection, when He saw they had become over curious, how He stopped their mouths more decidedly. For now indeed He has mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He says merely, It is not for you to know times or seasons. And then that they might not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are not held worthy so much as of this, He says, which the Father has put in His own power. And this, because He was exceedingly careful to honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, the Spirit indeed searches even the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 and does not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knows, and of the secrets of each He has a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made, was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?...For that indeed I am not ignorant of it, I have shown by many things; having mentioned intervals, and all the things that are to occur, and how short from this present time until the day itself (for this did the parable of the fig tree indicate), and I lead you to the very vestibule; and if I do not open unto you the doors, this also I do for your good.

And that you may learn by another thing also, that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part......Wherefore He first says this, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over His household to give them their meat in their due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods.

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, neither does the Son know, you say He is ignorant of it; as He says, who then? what will you say? Will you say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, Peter, do you love me? John 21:16 asking it, knew He not so much as this? Nor when He said, Where have ye laid him? John 11:34

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

To be able to die requires a mortal nature, and we believe that the Word united to Himself just such mortal nature.

But ignorance is not a faculty of humanity, it is a condition of the faculty of 'knowing'. We understand that the Word has the human faculty of knowing, in accordance with the perfection of His humanity. But being 'ignorant' is not a human faculty, rather it describes the content of the human faculty of 'knowing'.

We ourselves have to acquire a limited amount of knowledge through experience, study, reflection etc. We watch sci-fi movies where this process is speeded up so that a character can learn an entire domain of knowledge in moments. We don't consider this 'inhuman', just a matter of technology. There is therefore nothing 'inhuman' in considering that the human faculty of knowing in Christ operates the same as ours but finds its content 'infused' with the divine knowledge as God the Word wills.

We see this throughout the Gospels..

When you were under the tree I saw you.

Let us go, our friend Lazarus has died.

He knew what they were thinking.

This is no different to all the other human faculties, they properly exist but are deified in union with the Word whose faculties they are. At every moment the Word allows His own humanity to know, in a human manner through the same process of cognition we experience, whatever it is that He wills to know. The difference is the source of knowledge.

For us it is the usual mental processing of sense data, as well as the effect of grace granting certain intuitions and knowledge beyond such sense data.

For Christ it is the mental processing of sense data, but also the direct (and not of grace) impenetration of the human mind with the Divine knowledge of the Word as He willed.

I don't think that this means that the human brain of Christ (how dare we dissect our Lord in such a way) contained in its neurons every fact in the universe. I think that would be impossible for a human brain. Rather I think that all knowledge was available to the human mind as the Word chose, and at the moment that the Divine knowledge was turned to some effect in the humanity that knowledge was known to the humanity. He knew and knows all things, but rather because all things are made transparent to the humanity as the Word wills.

Does any of that make sense?

En theoria we see that the human mind of Christ is limited just as our is, but in union with the Word all limitations are transcended.

To be able to die requires a mortal nature, and we believe that the Word united to Himself just such mortal nature.

But ignorance is not a faculty of humanity, it is a condition of the faculty of 'knowing'. We understand that the Word has the human faculty of knowing, in accordance with the perfection of His humanity. But being 'ignorant' is not a human faculty, rather it describes the content of the human faculty of 'knowing'.

Agreed.

Quote

We ourselves have to acquire a limited amount of knowledge through experience, study, reflection etc. We watch sci-fi movies where this process is speeded up so that a character can learn an entire domain of knowledge in moments. We don't consider this 'inhuman', just a matter of technology.

Actually, I would consider that inhuman. And while ignorance is not part of human nature (we do not become less human by growing in wisdom and knowledge), corporeality is; that is to say, it is human to exist in space-time, to have 'only so many hours in the day', to have limited experience, to learn, to grow, etc.

Quote

There is therefore nothing 'inhuman' in considering that the human faculty of knowing in Christ operates the same as ours but finds its content 'infused' with the divine knowledge as God the Word wills.

Probably not necessarily so, yes; but this idea could be problematic if you approached it in, for example, an Apollinarian manner, replacing Christ's human mind with the Logos. So I would like to see a more precise description of the structure of this infusion, if possible.

Quote

We see this throughout the Gospels..

When you were under the tree I saw you.

Let us go, our friend Lazarus has died.

He knew what they were thinking.

This is no different to all the other human faculties, they properly exist but are deified in union with the Word whose faculties they are. At every moment the Word allows His own humanity to know, in a human manner through the same process of cognition we experience, whatever it is that He wills to know. The difference is the source of knowledge.

For us it is the usual mental processing of sense data, as well as the effect of grace granting certain intuitions and knowledge beyond such sense data.

For Christ it is the mental processing of sense data, but also the direct (and not of grace) impenetration of the human mind with the Divine knowledge of the Word as He willed.

I don't think that this means that the human brain of Christ (how dare we dissect our Lord in such a way) contained in its neurons every fact in the universe. I think that would be impossible for a human brain. Rather I think that all knowledge was available to the human mind as the Word chose, and at the moment that the Divine knowledge was turned to some effect in the humanity that knowledge was known to the humanity. He knew and knows all things, but rather because all things are made transparent to the humanity as the Word wills.

Does any of that make sense?

En theoria we see that the human mind of Christ is limited just as our is, but in union with the Word all limitations are transcended.

This seems to me to be what St Cyril is teaching.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

He knew these things as a man, the ontologically-circumscribed Logos who remains un-circumscribed in logical paradox.

He did not know them because his mind had all the divine knowledge.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

In his commentary on Matthew 24:36, however, he does allude to John 11:34 and says that Christ was not ignorant.

Quote

But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. By saying, not the angels, He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, neither the Son, forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire. For in proof that therefore He said this, see after His resurrection, when He saw they had become over curious, how He stopped their mouths more decidedly. For now indeed He has mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He says merely, It is not for you to know times or seasons. And then that they might not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are not held worthy so much as of this, He says, which the Father has put in His own power. And this, because He was exceedingly careful to honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, the Spirit indeed searches even the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 and does not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knows, and of the secrets of each He has a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made, was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?...For that indeed I am not ignorant of it, I have shown by many things; having mentioned intervals, and all the things that are to occur, and how short from this present time until the day itself (for this did the parable of the fig tree indicate), and I lead you to the very vestibule; and if I do not open unto you the doors, this also I do for your good.

And that you may learn by another thing also, that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part......Wherefore He first says this, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over His household to give them their meat in their due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods.

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, neither does the Son know, you say He is ignorant of it; as He says, who then? what will you say? Will you say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, Peter, do you love me? John 21:16 asking it, knew He not so much as this? Nor when He said, Where have ye laid him? John 11:34

JLatimer, I think that in the two examples given by Chrysostom at the end of the quote, Christ was not ignorant; the latter especially does not indicate ignorance even if you or I were to ask it.

I think that Christ could see into people's hearts, something that our saints can now do by grace, just as Christ did by natural union.

There is therefore nothing 'inhuman' in considering that the human faculty of knowing in Christ operates the same as ours but finds its content 'infused' with the divine knowledge as God the Word wills.

Probably not necessarily so, yes; but this idea could be problematic if you approached it in, for example, an Apollinarian manner, replacing Christ's human mind with the Logos. So I would like to see a more precise description of the structure of this infusion, if possible.

I agree. I think the danger is that one might pay lip-service to Christ technically having a human mind, whilst one functionally replaces that mind with the Logos for all intents and purposes through "divinized union".

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 05:48:57 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

In his commentary on Matthew 24:36, however, he does allude to John 11:34 and says that Christ was not ignorant.

Quote

But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. By saying, not the angels, He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, neither the Son, forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire. For in proof that therefore He said this, see after His resurrection, when He saw they had become over curious, how He stopped their mouths more decidedly. For now indeed He has mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He says merely, It is not for you to know times or seasons. And then that they might not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are not held worthy so much as of this, He says, which the Father has put in His own power. And this, because He was exceedingly careful to honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, the Spirit indeed searches even the deep things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 and does not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knows, and of the secrets of each He has a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made, was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?...For that indeed I am not ignorant of it, I have shown by many things; having mentioned intervals, and all the things that are to occur, and how short from this present time until the day itself (for this did the parable of the fig tree indicate), and I lead you to the very vestibule; and if I do not open unto you the doors, this also I do for your good.

And that you may learn by another thing also, that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part......Wherefore He first says this, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over His household to give them their meat in their due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods.

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, neither does the Son know, you say He is ignorant of it; as He says, who then? what will you say? Will you say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, Peter, do you love me? John 21:16 asking it, knew He not so much as this? Nor when He said, Where have ye laid him? John 11:34

JLatimer, I think that in the two examples given by Chrysostom at the end of the quote, Christ was not ignorant; the latter especially does not indicate ignorance even if you or I were to ask it.

I think that Christ could see into people's hearts, something that our saints can now do by grace, just as Christ did by natural union.

Yes; then we agree Chrysostom does not seem to attribute ignorance to Christ?

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Yes; then we agree Chrysostom does not seem to attribute ignorance to Christ?

Not in those two examples, no. I do think that the Incarnate Logos had to learn who he was, didn't know calculus or Chinese, etc, but I don't think he was "ignorant" as we are.

I believe that the Logos willed, in eternity, all of his choices as the Incarnate God. But I believe that in the economia of the incarnation, when God chose to be incarnate, that initial choice ontologically limited his subsequent choices in time. Thus the Logos both willed everything in his life and Passion (in eternity) and was ontologically subjected to them, and limited by them, as a real human being in the economia of salvation.

I also believe that it is natural, fitting, and organic to the Divine Nature to be humbled, because God is truly humble even in eternity. Of all the things that Pope St. Leo wrote, his attribution of "exaltation" to the Divine nature and "humility" to the human nature, as if they contradict in this manner, is where I find the most disagreement with him.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 05:59:42 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.